I am a graphic designer on a small magazine. (And recent photography enthusiast) Page spreads in our publication run at about A3 size. In the past I have never had a problem with 67 Medium Format holding up for spreads, and 35mm held up alot of the time depending on the quality of the shot. In recent years we've converted over to digital due to a turnover in photographers who shoot only digital. (Nikon D70 / Kodak 14N)

The problem I am having is that the images no longer hold up very well as spreads, and sometimes look bad in comparison to the images the photographer may print on his Epson. He's able to make VERY large print from the same file, very crisp. Which has me baffled since his prints are so much large than the spreads.

His images look a far lesser quality when run on a press. This has had me stumped for while with my only explanation being that his very expensive Epson (6 color RGB) might have an advantage in displaying more subtle color tones that are not able to be displayed via 4-color process. I had also wondered if his hardware might auto-upsample his files somehow when printing large, since his printer is made for producing large prints.

You may need to learn about color management, and look into your linearization and profiling for your press. The newer inkjets (especially the Epsons) are capable of printing to a very high level of quality, so they may be making your press look bad in comparison. Inkjets have advanced quite a bit in the last few years.

... The problem I am having is that the images no longer hold up very well as spreads, and sometimes look bad in comparison to the images the photographer may print on his Epson. He's able to make VERY large print from the same file, very crisp. Which has me baffled since his prints are so much large than the spreads.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=53685\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You haven't said in what way your spreads look worse. It seems like you are talking about resolution/pixelization/ artifact type issues, rather than color. If so, you should make sure you are getting full-size, full resolution files (or files already interpolated to your dots per inch requirements). If the photographer sets the size, and perhaps doesn't know the best ways to do it, and then you change the size again - and maybe aren't using a really high quality method to doing so - you are very likely to get degradation of the image.

So talk some more about what doesn't look right, file sizes, file formats that you get, whether the photographer has processed the file for his printer, or just given you an unmodified file, etc.

* Don't use inkjet prints for evaluating how the images will run on press. Inkjet and offset are completely different animals. Use the inkjet prints for rough viewing and selecting, but make your decisions based on the quality and the numbers you see on the screen. (NOTE: you must have a high-quality, color-calibrated monitor.)

* What are the pixel dimensions of the images you're working with? For an A3 spread, assuming 150 or so LPI (if you're small, you're running sheetfed at this line screen, yes? I'm just guessing), and if your press wants 300 PPI (ask your production person to confirm this), then you'll need an image of about 5,000 x 3,500 pixels or about a 50MB file. (this is why stock houses want 50MB files!) Any less and you're in trouble.

* Your photographers are going to have to use top-of-the-line DSLRs, and even then, it's barely going to get you there; the Canon EOS-1DS Mark II can deliver those kinds of pixel dimensions but doubt any Nikon can. Or, even better are digital backs that can go up to 100+MB files (but don't know if that's feasible or what your subject matter is). Otherwise, you're stuck unless you (1) go back to high-res film scans, (2) try interpolating ("upsampling") the images up to the correct size to see what happens, (3) find some other tricks, or (4) live with the loss in quality. People used to scream about the loss in typographic quality with the invention of desktop publishing, but no one cared after a while.

* You should work very closely with your print production person, whether at the print shop, prep house, or whatever. They know the press specs and how far you can push the limits.

* Your photographers are going to have to use top-of-the-line DSLRs <snip> Otherwise, you're stuck unless you (1) go back to high-res film scans, (2) try interpolating ("upsampling") the images up to the correct size to see what happens, (3) find some other tricks, or (4) live with the loss in quality.

Option (2) - upsampling - is done by pretty much all digital photographers, even those using top-of-the-line DSLRs. For enlargements of up to about 200% they typically hold up exteremly well, as long as the original image is very sharp and shot at low ISO. Much better than film, in fact, as there is essentially no grain.

Ask your photographers to supply files in the dimensions that Heraldo reccommends and then any remaining problems most likely lie elsewhere.

Julian is correct, but I'm not sure I would have the photographers to the upsampling. They typically do it for their own printing, most commonly inkjet, and offset has its own requirements. Personally, I would get the high-res TIFF files from the photographers and then, working with the press production person, do the upsampling on the back end.

Hi, It sounds like you are experiencing a common problem. The removal of the scanner "operator" from the equation. This is an area that has caused so many problems in the digital transition it would be funny if it wasn't so frustrating. The treatment of files for "fine art" inkjet printing and offset reproduction are worlds apart. The areas of most problems are the CMYK conversion, firstly almost without exception if you are converting from digital use GCR not UCR. And a moderate amount of UCA. You are not working with film anymore and the old methods that served you well in the past simply do not work. The second is sharpening, and the biggest mistake for "offset" is not sharpening enough. Simply for sharp output with conventional AM screening you should sharpen at 50% magnification on screen, and at 100% it should look "overdone". Remember your screen does not have a rosette.The fact is that all this was done by an experienced scanner operator previously, and scans just turned up looking great, and in the digital era you have photographers trying to do this, without doing four years of trade training.

If your photographer is supplying Epsons made from thet original RGB files, they can't accurately reflect your press, and you can expect those Epsons to have significantly brighter and more saturated colors than what your offset press with relatively cheap paper can deliver. Epsons can deliver surprisingly sharp prints from files with resolutions as low as 180 dpi, which can be very misleading if the photographer doesn't understand all the implications of resolution. The conversion to CMYK is absolutely critical and ideally should be done by someone who fully understands the process and is using custom profiles with the proper ink limits and black generation for your press. Contrary to an earlier post, there is no difference in converting from a digital source vs. a scanned film source. They are one and the same as far as Photoshop is concerned. They do, however need different sharpening routines, depending, of course on the camera, scanner and subject of the image.

If your photographer is supplying Epsons made from thet original RGB files, they can't accurately reflect your press, and you can expect those Epsons to have significantly brighter and more saturated colors than what your offset press with relatively cheap paper can deliver. Epsons can deliver surprisingly sharp prints from files with resolutions as low as 180 dpi, which can be very misleading if the photographer doesn't understand all the implications of resolution. The conversion to CMYK is absolutely critical and ideally should be done by someone who fully understands the process and is using custom profiles with the proper ink limits and black generation for your press. Contrary to an earlier post, there is no difference in converting from a digital source vs. a scanned film source. They are one and the same as far as Photoshop is concerned. They do, however need different sharpening routines, depending, of course on the camera, scanner and subject of the image.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54884\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't mean to get the year of to a start with a bun fight but I would have to 100% disagree on the GCR with UCA vs UCR, and yes it is what I do for my "day job". With over 10 years prepress experience I have lost count of the number of people I have come across tearing their hair out trying to convert digital shots to CMYK using UCR. The fact of the matter is that when scanning film, more often than not the conversion was done using the drum scanning software, perhaps Linocolor, or another of it's ilk. The UCR conversion in Photoshop is very harsh and leads to a tonal break in the 3/4 to shadow transition. The main cause of this is the removal of too much CMY at the transition (think grey shadows under chins instead of the skin tone that was there in RGB) . Thankfully most of the defaults in PSCS2 are now GCR, which allows the control of UCA. You have to remember that the main (but not only) purpose of UCR & GCR is to reduce printing cost. Also on the point of using Epsons for proofing. It is all in the software. Without exception (OK maybe the odd one who can afford Kodak Approval) every prepress house and publisher I deal with uses Epson or Agfa Sherpa (re-badged Epson) for proofing with a rip and press profiles. Yes having a calibrated monitor is good but you really need to be able to have a hard copy.

The Photokit Sharpening plug-in works extremely well in (in addition to much else) applying the 'correct' amount of sharpening for many print outputs, including press at several LPI levels.

BUT that output sharpening HAS to be done with the image at the actual print size - which usually makes it impossible for the photographer to apply it as he/she normally won't know what size you want to use it at. If it is only the A3 size images you are having problems with then maybe he can output sharpen only those images you have chosen. Or maybe you can use it but it would have to be on images that the photographer has not "fully" sharpened.

Potential ugly results arise if you and he "double sharpen" an image, so a clear understanding of who does what, and when would be needed!

As has already been said, upsampling to about 150-200% should pose minimal problems if done correctly.

abagail97: <SNIP... Also on the point of using Epsons for proofing. It is all in the software. Without exception (OK maybe the odd one who can afford Kodak Approval) every prepress house and publisher I deal with uses Epson or Agfa Sherpa (re-badged Epson) for proofing with a rip and press profiles. Yes having a calibrated monitor is good but you really need to be able to have a hard copy. >

Correct, but the original poster was talking about Epson prints from the photographers themselves, not from the pre-press house or the print shop. Most photographers do not know how to do correct inkjet press emulations nor do they have the appropriate RIPs to do them. That's why I advised the poster not to use them as guides (I could have been clearer about that). However, if HE wants to run an inhouse proof with the correct RIPPed workflow, that's a different story.

abagail97: <SNIP... Also on the point of using Epsons for proofing. It is all in the software. Without exception (OK maybe the odd one who can afford Kodak Approval) every prepress house and publisher I deal with uses Epson or Agfa Sherpa (re-badged Epson) for proofing with a rip and press profiles. Yes having a calibrated monitor is good but you really need to be able to have a hard copy. >

Correct, but the original poster was talking about Epson prints from the photographers themselves, not from the pre-press house or the print shop. Most photographers do not know how to do correct inkjet press emulations nor do they have the appropriate RIPs to do them. That's why I advised the poster not to use them as guides (I could have been clearer about that). However, if HE wants to run an inhouse proof with the correct RIPPed workflow, that's a different story.

Very true, I strongly suggest to every photographer I speak to about this that they do go the extra mile, so to speak and invest in a rip; (Imageprint is a good choice as it is a good allrounder, excellent "fine art" colour, superb B&W, and very competent press proofing) but there are many others. Really the added expense is minimal (one good lens?) and it saves so much in time and materials that it will quickly pay for itself. On profiles if you can get them from your printers great, if not www.swop.org and GAFT are a good place to start, and a generic press target is probably not too bad as most people are aiming for SWOP anyway.

"I don't mean to get the year of to a start with a bun fight but I would have to 100% disagree on the GCR with UCA vs UCR, and yes it is what I do for my "day job". With over 10 years prepress experience I have lost count of the number of people I have come across tearing their hair out trying to convert digital shots to CMYK using UCR. The fact of the matter is that when scanning film, more often than not the conversion was done using the drum scanning software, perhaps Linocolor, or another of it's ilk."

Don't want to beat a dead horse here, but there simply is no difference in separating film scans or digital captures. If there were, I would have seen it thousands of times. If you want to argue methods of conversion, that's an entirely different story, and if you've been involved in prepress for 10 years (as have I) and are still using Photoshop's servicable but lacking classic engine, then perhaps I can understand your concern. The differences you allude to have nothing to do with the source of the image, only the tools used for conversion.

Drum scanners capture in RGB, and while the scan was traditionally converted on the fly in the scanning software, most of us now capture hi-bit profiled RGB and leave the conversion for later depending on the destination of the file. Photoshop now defaults not to the classic engine, but to the Adobe CMM and whatever profile you have loaded in your color settings. The quality of conversions in Photoshop using the Adobe CMM and custom profiles is easily equal and in most cases superior to the on-the-fly conversions that pre-press scanner operators used to make.

"The UCR conversion in Photoshop is very harsh and leads to a tonal break in the 3/4 to shadow transition. The main cause of this is the removal of too much CMY at the transition (think grey shadows under chins instead of the skin tone that was there in RGB) . Thankfully most of the defaults in PSCS2 are now GCR, which allows the control of UCA."

No one I know recommends using the UCR option in the classic engine. If you're going to use the classic engine, light GCR with no UCA is usually recommended, but we have better tools now - custom and canned icc profiles.

"You have to remember that the main (but not only) purpose of UCR & GCR is to reduce printing cost."

Mostly to be able to control the ink limits on web presses to allow them to run faster and to still have a convincing black.

"Also on the point of using Epsons for proofing. It is all in the software."

You don't need any special software to to great pre-press simulations. All you need are good profiles for your pre-press proofing system and for your Epson. You can easily do the rest in Photoshop.

"Without exception (OK maybe the odd one who can afford Kodak Approval) every prepress house and publisher I deal with uses Epson or Agfa Sherpa (re-badged Epson) for proofing with a rip and press profiles."

Kodak Approvals, DuPont Waterproofs, Fuji FinalProofs, Imation Digital MatchPrints, are all pretty standard digital proofing systems these days. In my experience, it's the odd one who doesn't use one of the above. Sherpas and Oris proofing systems are pretty good, but not my favorite, but you have to deal with whatever your vendor uses.

"I don't mean to get the year of to a start with a bun fight but I would have to 100% disagree on the GCR with UCA vs UCR, and yes it is what I do for my "day job". With over 10 years prepress experience I have lost count of the number of people I have come across tearing their hair out trying to convert digital shots to CMYK using UCR. The fact of the matter is that when scanning film, more often than not the conversion was done using the drum scanning software, perhaps Linocolor, or another of it's ilk."

Don't want to beat a dead horse here, but there simply is no difference in separating film scans or digital captures. If there were, I would have seen it thousands of times. If you want to argue methods of conversion, that's an entirely different story, and if you've been involved in prepress for 10 years (as have I) and are still using Photoshop's servicable but lacking classic engine, then perhaps I can understand your concern. The differences you allude to have nothing to do with the source of the image, only the tools used for conversion.

Drum scanners capture in RGB, and while the scan was traditionally converted on the fly in the scanning software, most of us now capture hi-bit profiled RGB and leave the conversion for later depending on the destination of the file. Photoshop now defaults not to the classic engine, but to the Adobe CMM and whatever profile you have loaded in your color settings. The quality of conversions in Photoshop using the Adobe CMM and custom profiles is easily equal and in most cases superior to the on-the-fly conversions that pre-press scanner operators used to make.

"The UCR conversion in Photoshop is very harsh and leads to a tonal break in the 3/4 to shadow transition. The main cause of this is the removal of too much CMY at the transition (think grey shadows under chins instead of the skin tone that was there in RGB) . Thankfully most of the defaults in PSCS2 are now GCR, which allows the control of UCA."

No one I know recommends using the UCR option in the classic engine. If you're going to use the classic engine, light GCR with no UCA is usually recommended, but we have better tools now - custom and canned icc profiles."You have to remember that the main (but not only) purpose of UCR & GCR is to reduce printing cost."

Mostly to be able to control the ink limits on web presses to allow them to run faster and to still have a convincing black.

"Also on the point of using Epsons for proofing. It is all in the software."

You don't need any special software to to great pre-press simulations. All you need are good profiles for your pre-press proofing system and for your Epson. You can easily do the rest in Photoshop.

"Without exception (OK maybe the odd one who can afford Kodak Approval) every prepress house and publisher I deal with uses Epson or Agfa Sherpa (re-badged Epson) for proofing with a rip and press profiles."

Kodak Approvals, DuPont Waterproofs, Fuji FinalProofs, Imation Digital MatchPrints, are all pretty standard digital proofing systems these days. In my experience, it's the odd one who doesn't use one of the above. Sherpas and Oris proofing systems are pretty good, but not my favorite, but you have to deal with whatever your vendor uses.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54974\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sorry for the confusion, I too was alluding to the advantages of GCR over UCR, but I find that a lot of people don't know the difference, and UCR used to be a lot more common in the "olden days" (pre 2000). I don't think I've used Photoshop to do a CMYK conversion for over 5 years. We shoot with Leaf Volare's, Cantare's and Valeos22's which whilst RGB devices are able to work as CMYK, i.e. you load up a profile and then preview and capture, adjust (globally of course) and save out to a CMYK file straight out of the camera, just like a drum scanner. Which is not to say Photoshop is no good, as I pointed out the current defaults in CS2 are quite good and can be used in the absence of dedicated profiles. The problem as I see it is the lack of understanding of exactly what you are trying to achieve when specifying separation parameters, and this was one of my initial points. All this used to be done by a hopefully experienced scanner operator that had been trained in these matters. Whilst ICC profiles are great, what do you do when a press house won't release them to you, which is very common, as a lot see it as intellectual property. You need to be able to work around this and other scenarios. The largest magazine publisher in Australia is not using an ICC workflow, we supply them pre separated CMYK without profiles embedded. Photographers are not used to doing this, and this gap in knowledge is a big hurdle to both achieving a quality result at least, and at best retaining full control over the look of an image in print. There is a huge variation in the level of uptake in this field, from very good, through to almost zeroAs for the preferred proofing method, I think this may be geographical, as ink-jet is definitely the method of choice here in Australasia. My previous employer in fact junked both their Polaroid Pola-Proofers, and their euro proofer (cromalin) months before I left, completely replaced by Oris across 14 sites.The thing is, as I say you need to be able to work across the full spectrum, from people who are really onto it, to people who are shall we say, still finding their way.

"Whilst ICC profiles are great, what do you do when a press house won't release them to you, which is very common, as a lot see it as intellectual property. You need to be able to work around this and other scenarios."

In the US, virtually all magazines print very close to SWOP, and there are plenty of good SWOP profiles available. I don't know what standards, if any, Australian publications adhere to. Sheetfed printing houses are an entirely different matter, with every printer seemingly printing to their own standard, many of which claim to be SWOP, but rarely are. In addition, I can count on one hand the number of shops in Los Angeles that have their own profiles and know what to do with them, and even the ones that do supply profiles, often have to be rebuilt with more appropriate specs - something especially easy with Gretag profiles. I generally make my own custom profiles for whatever vendor I am using for a given job. They don't know and don't need to know what I'm doing, outside of printing the target. They usually will ask me what I'm doing , mutter that it will never work, and then ask me how I got such great results after the job prints.

If you've got a situation where there is no profile and the vendor will not run a target for you, it doesn't matter what method you use to convert, it will always be a guess.

As for doing your conversion directly from the digital capture, there are many reasons not to do that, not the least of which are ending up with a file that is targeted for one specific output. In addition, there are retouching techniques that are best carried out in RGB or Lab color spaces, and many outputs that require RGB files. For the type of work that I do, it's much better to save the raw files and process them into hi-bit RGB for retouching and then converted for specific output when that is known.

"Whilst ICC profiles are great, what do you do when a press house won't release them to you, which is very common, as a lot see it as intellectual property. You need to be able to work around this and other scenarios."

In the US, virtually all magazines print very close to SWOP, and there are plenty of good SWOP profiles available. I don't know what standards, if any, Australian publications adhere to. Sheetfed printing houses are an entirely different matter, with every printer seemingly printing to their own standard, many of which claim to be SWOP, but rarely are. In addition, I can count on one hand the number of shops in Los Angeles that have their own profiles and know what to do with them, and even the ones that do supply profiles, often have to be rebuilt with more appropriate specs - something especially easy with Gretag profiles. I generally make my own custom profiles for whatever vendor I am using for a given job. They don't know and don't need to know what I'm doing, outside of printing the target. They usually will ask me what I'm doing , mutter that it will never work, and then ask me how I got such great results after the job prints.

If you've got a situation where there is no profile and the vendor will not run a target for you, it doesn't matter what method you use to convert, it will always be a guess.

As for doing your conversion directly from the digital capture, there are many reasons not to do that, not the least of which are ending up with a file that is targeted for one specific output. In addition, there are retouching techniques that are best carried out in RGB or Lab color spaces, and many outputs that require RGB files. For the type of work that I do, it's much better to save the raw files and process them into hi-bit RGB for retouching and then converted for specific output when that is known.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=55063\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

All very true, I should clarify as you may think our workflow a little odd, we are lucky to work very closely with most of our clients and usually supply press ready files that most of them don't even open, they just place them in their layouts and go straight to print, mostly editorial so it is usually one off use, or specific to one publication so reuse it not an issue. If we are supplying an advertising job that will be cross media then yes we supply 16 bit RGB to allow multiple conversions at a later stage.